Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . .
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor, would you (as President) have attacked Japan?
Absolutely
15%
 15%  [ 2 ]
Yes, if the intelligence were reasonably reliable
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Yes, but only if the threat was certain and imminent
15%
 15%  [ 2 ]
No, I would have only authorized the defense of the continental US
38%
 38%  [ 5 ]
No (other)
30%
 30%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 13

Author Message
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . Reply with quote
Kuros wrote:
This is a question that Piers Morgan posed to Ron Paul on February 3, 2012. I think it would be fun for CE forum members to answer it.

Piers Morgan wrote:
If you had knowledge, and you were President [of the United States] when Pearl Harbor happened, if you had pre-knowledge, would you have attacked Japan?



Is that the whole question? You would need a bit more situational information to answer such a hypothetical:

When? At what point in time before the attack does the President gain this pre-knowledge?

There were no ICBMs then, and no Intercontinental jets, so the actual launching of this attack was a bit of a slow-motion operation compared to today and the Japanese plan was formulated and depended on secrecy ... so, at what point in time does the President become aware?

1) If it's prior to the sailing of the Japanese Fleet, or if the Fleet is not yet in attack position, then no problem. The President mobilizes the fleet to take defensive action, leaving Pearl Harbor.

Then President notifies Congress, the media and the American people of the pending attack. The Congress begins the debate regarding the declaration of war as per the Constitution. The Japanese surprise attack is blown and they either back down or, since Japan had already secretly declared war prior to the attack but the President has this foreknowledge, the Congress declares war. Then the appropriate military response can be mounted.

2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.

Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.


There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Upon further consideration, I don't think attacking Japanese soil would have really made sense. Pearl Harbor was a risky move on the part of the Japanese; as such, if the attacking fleet had merely been ambushed, Japan's ability to wage war would have been vastly diminished. Didn't they send every carrier they had to Hawaii? Had they been ambushed and lost of few of those ships, it would have essentially been Midway but at the beginning of the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:17 am    Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . Reply with quote
ontheway wrote:

2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.

Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.


There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing.


I think that is true of 1941. Navies couldn't span the Pacific so quickly, and the US would be tied down meeting Japanese forces.

But in 2012? A viable strategy would be a direct attack on command and control. The distinction between defense and offense has been blurred by modern technology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:52 am    Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . Reply with quote
Kuros wrote:
ontheway wrote:

2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.

Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.


There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing.


I think that is true of 1941. Navies couldn't span the Pacific so quickly, and the US would be tied down meeting Japanese forces.

But in 2012? A viable strategy would be a direct attack on command and control. The distinction between defense and offense has been blurred by modern technology.



This is the problem with hypotheticals.

In 2012: Same conditions: the President is forewarned?

Which nation state?

Few have any means of direct attack upon the US without considerable lead time. Those few are likely still deterred by MAD. Further, would it make since to initiate the attack and face MAD in reverse?

Any others that might choose to attack would not require a pre-emptive strike by the US, as there would be adequate time to declare war.

In the case of a state sponsored terrorist attack or sneak attack, no attack on that nation's homeland would thwart the delivery of the attack. We would have to seek out the weapon(s) being deployed. This would be defensive and could and should be undertaken while securing the proper declaration of war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jaykimf



Joined: 24 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jaykimf wrote:
I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange.


I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jaykimf



Joined: 24 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kuros wrote:
jaykimf wrote:
I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange.


I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory.


So because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory, the President might not want to defend U.S. territory and its major military base at Pearl Harbor? Still very strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: